Houston lures business and top workers with 'back to basics' approach

[musicman]

American cities should develop and nurture the middle class by emulating Houston's diversity, entrepreneurial spirit, low taxes and limited regulation, urban expert Joel Kotkin says in a new report.

Kotkin's study, entitled "Opportunity Urbanism: An Emerging Paradigm for the 21st Century," challenges what Kotkin calls "elite" economic development strategies aimed at attracting wealthy, highly skilled people

Edited June 5, 2007 by musicman

[The Great Hizzy!]

What does Joel Kotkin know? Our buildings aren't close together. We suck.

[lockmat]

Here is a video related to this subject.

It's Stephen Klineberg who is a sociologist at Rice speaking at a Greater Houston Partnership luncheon talking about a study he did for Houston. It's about 20 mins total for the luncheon presentation and another 10 I think for the interview afterwards.

http://www.houston.org/webcasts/2007Klineberglunch.asp

[VelvetJ]

"Kotkin, a senior fellow at the New America Foundation and the author of several books on urban issues, discussed the report today in a speech to the Greater Houston Partnership, which paid for the study."

The above statement says a lot.

So my question is, since there is no need to attract the 'creative class', is there a place for the creative class in this "World Class" city we call home? Is Houston the one trick 'blue collar class' pony? Is Houston's arms wide open to everyone, except the creative class? Are there any benefits to a city having just as strong a creative class as any other class? If I am in the 'creative class' and considering Houston as an option, should I now move on to another city? Hmmmmmmmmm.

I think it's time for my old tag line to return.

[musicman]

"Kotkin, a senior fellow at the New America Foundation and the author of several books on urban issues, discussed the report today in a speech to the Greater Houston Partnership, which paid for the study."

The above statement says a lot.

So my question is, since there is no need to attract the 'creative class', is there a place for the creative class in this "World Class" city we call home? Is Houston the one trick 'blue collar class' pony? Is Houston's arms wide open to everyone, except the creative class? Are there any benefits to a city having just as strong a creative class as any other class? If I am in the 'creative class' and considering Houston as an option, should I now move on to another city? Hmmmmmmmmm.

I think it's time for my old tag line to return.

guess you missed the statement Because of widening differences in housing and other costs, there has been a decisive demographic tilt towards cities such as Phoenix, Dallas, Atlanta, Charlotte (N.C.) and Houston," Kotkin writes. And these same cities, he says, are attracting a growing share of high-wage employers and educated migrants, "including members of the ballyhooed 'creative class.' "

Edited June 5, 2007 by musicman

[N Judah]

I think to prove him wrong one would just have to find a group of cities that successfully pursued quality-of-life improvements as a means of prosperity creation.

So Boston-SF are on one end of the spectrum, and Phoenix, Houston, Charlotte, and Dallas are together at the other end. But is that really where Houston (or Phoenix or Charlotte or Dallas) wants to stay? Is there some kind of middle ground?

Edited June 6, 2007 by N Judah

[RedScare]

He's not so much saying that Houston, et al are at the other end of the spectrum, as saying that these cities are investing in basic building blocks like roads and education, rather than just building playgrounds for twentysomethings. While these cities are making strides in making the urban core attractive, Houston and the others are not ignoring the rest of their city in the process.

If you read Richard Florida's writings, he is really kind of full of it. He suggests that manufacturing, warehousing, and repair industries are dead, and only lawyers, doctors, artists and IT professionals are worth having in your city. He recommends building your city as a playground for these groups, and you will be rewarded by becoming the next San Francisco. It is so outlandish, but city planners everywhere fall for it, thinking that their poor and undereducated will simply vanish, or be pushed out by the lawyers and artists.

The worst part of his vision is it is expensive, and almost by definition, the "creative class" is not rich. Sure, the doctors and lawyers may be, but there is little worse than hanging out with a bunch of rich doctors and lawyers. They hate everyone beneath them, and hate each other. Their only real usefulness is as prodigous consumers. The artists and musicians need older poorer areas in which to live, since making money and being creative tend to conflict, in that when working, one tends not to be artistic.

Houston, by not getting too restrictive in its planning, allows at least a fighting chance at a middle class surviving inside the city limits. Dying cities tend to be devoid of a middle class, leaving only the very wealthy and the very poor.

[musicman]

Concur with the above!

... but there is little worse than hanging out with a bunch of rich doctors and lawyers.

do tell juris doctor do tell.

[MidtownCoog]

As a member of the "creative class", I always thought Florida was full of it.

But I remember Klineberg says Houston has no growth other than immigrants.

He and Kotkin may be full of it, too. It's all theory.

[RedScare]

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4865309.html

A little more detail on what Kotkin said. He sounds like he goes overboard in the OTHER direction. As is usually the case, the proper mix is somewhere in the middle. While building urban playgrounds in hopes of ATTRACTING the "creative class" is bunk, as they follow the jobs, not the bike trails, going to the other extreme, where you ignore parks and trails so that you can build bigger and more freeways is ridiculous, too. Houston, Dallas, Atlanta and others ARE devoting resources toward making their cities more livable, and ARE sprucing up their inner cities, but mostly because they have found that people now want to live there, and these new developments increase the tax dollars coming in. It is a case of spending money to make money.

Houston, in particular, is building new parks and trails, but again, it is not in hopes of convincing the creative class to move here. It is because they, with Harris County, found a cost effective way to build flood control projects AND parks concurrently, by building parks in the flood plains. This makes use of undevelopable property, while simultaneously enhancing the tax producing property nearby. These new parks are certainly welcomed by the creative class (as well as the working class), but was not done to attract them...it was done to give the citizens already here some quality of life. The fact that the creative class also likes it is a bonus.

What both of these guys ignore is that Houston is not a terrible place to live...it has a PERCEPTION that it is a bad place to live. By and large, the people who live here like it, and there are plenty of outdoor recreation opportunities, given our climate and proximity to the Gulf and lakes. Richard Florida especially ignores two glaring facts. One, the creative class rarely starts businesses from scratch. They work for an employer first, gaining valuable experience, then leave to start their own business. Secondly, if a creative class individual actually WERE to choose a city first, it would rarely be a city with a perception like Houston, because under Florida's rules, they look for superstar amenities.

The fact is, the overwhelming majority of people go where the jobs are. The superstar cities are glutted with young college grads following Richard Florida trends. The smart ones come to Houston, Dallas and Atlanta....and, they do well here. Can Houston do better with quality of life issues? Sure. Is that all the City should concentrate on? Not even close.

[Houston19514]

You can read Kotkin's full report at www.houston.org I recommend it. Very interesting and makes a lot of sense.

[GovernorAggie]

As a former resident of Charlotte (home to as many F500 headquarters as Dallas--including Bank of America, Wachovia, Duke Energy and other smaller companies like Family Dollar and Cato clothing stores), I can tell you that Kotkin is sorta off-base in his assertion and grouping it with Houston. That place is stiving A LOT to be like a Boston or Baltimore or San Francisco. They have changed a lot of ordinances, and years ago the Mayor and City Council OUTLAWED cul-de-sacs on the principle of traffic problems they cause (true phenomenon IMO). The city is all about more urban-styled, mixed-use developments as a policy, going as far to even make a Super Wal Mart include housing in its development (which Wal Mart agreed to, IIRC--goes to show that if your city is desirable, developers will do whatever they have to do to 'get in where they can fit in').They're building their version of BW8, but already planned out land uses at each future interchange.

Ironically, it's those big companies that are trying to lure these 'creative class' types. Doing things like fronting the city a $100 Million interest-free loan to build its new arena, and participating in several new projects in their downtown (several new condo towers--a few in the 30-50+ story range).

Sorry for the rant, just thought Kotkin should've left Charlotte out of that group, maybe substitute somewhere like Orlando.

[lockmat]

Houston, in particular, is building new parks and trails, but again, it is not in hopes of convincing the creative class to move here. It is because they, with Harris County, found a cost effective way to build flood control projects AND parks concurrently, by building parks in the flood plains. This makes use of undevelopable property, while simultaneously enhancing the tax producing property nearby. These new parks are certainly welcomed by the creative class (as well as the working class), but was not done to attract them...it was done to give the citizens already here some quality of life. The fact that the creative class also likes it is a bonus.

That's exactly what I was thinking.

"If Houston is to have anything like the skilled work force we will need in the years ahead," Klineberg said, its leaders must "ensure that all children in Houston, regardless of their parents' incomes, have access to quality health care, to affordable housing and, above all, to truly effective public education from preschool through college."

I don't know if I totally agree with this just because cities pull talents from other cities as well. But in general I agree. If you've read The World is Flat, you know that education is and will be more important than ever, especially math and science. (of course, I guess you didn't have to read that book to know it)

Edited June 6, 2007 by lockmat

[Houston19514]

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4865309.html

A little more detail on what Kotkin said. He sounds like he goes overboard in the OTHER direction. As is usually the case, the proper mix is somewhere in the middle. While building urban playgrounds in hopes of ATTRACTING the "creative class" is bunk, as they follow the jobs, not the bike trails, going to the other extreme, where you ignore parks and trails so that you can build bigger and more freeways is ridiculous, too. Houston, Dallas, Atlanta and others ARE devoting resources toward making their cities more livable, and ARE sprucing up their inner cities, but mostly because they have found that people now want to live there, and these new developments increase the tax dollars coming in. It is a case of spending money to make money.

Houston, in particular, is building new parks and trails, but again, it is not in hopes of convincing the creative class to move here. It is because they, with Harris County, found a cost effective way to build flood control projects AND parks concurrently, by building parks in the flood plains. This makes use of undevelopable property, while simultaneously enhancing the tax producing property nearby. These new parks are certainly welcomed by the creative class (as well as the working class), but was not done to attract them...it was done to give the citizens already here some quality of life. The fact that the creative class also likes it is a bonus.

What both of these guys ignore is that Houston is not a terrible place to live...it has a PERCEPTION that it is a bad place to live. By and large, the people who live here like it, and there are plenty of outdoor recreation opportunities, given our climate and proximity to the Gulf and lakes. Richard Florida especially ignores two glaring facts. One, the creative class rarely starts businesses from scratch. They work for an employer first, gaining valuable experience, then leave to start their own business. Secondly, if a creative class individual actually WERE to choose a city first, it would rarely be a city with a perception like Houston, because under Florida's rules, they look for superstar amenities.

The fact is, the overwhelming majority of people go where the jobs are. The superstar cities are glutted with young college grads following Richard Florida trends. The smart ones come to Houston, Dallas and Atlanta....and, they do well here. Can Houston do better with quality of life issues? Sure. Is that all the City should concentrate on? Not even close.

Excellent post, RedScare. You got it exactly right.

[Subdude]

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4865309.html

A little more detail on what Kotkin said. He sounds like he goes overboard in the OTHER direction. As is usually the case, the proper mix is somewhere in the middle. While building urban playgrounds in hopes of ATTRACTING the "creative class" is bunk, as they follow the jobs, not the bike trails, going to the other extreme, where you ignore parks and trails so that you can build bigger and more freeways is ridiculous, too. Houston, Dallas, Atlanta and others ARE devoting resources toward making their cities more livable, and ARE sprucing up their inner cities, but mostly because they have found that people now want to live there, and these new developments increase the tax dollars coming in. It is a case of spending money to make money.

Houston, in particular, is building new parks and trails, but again, it is not in hopes of convincing the creative class to move here. It is because they, with Harris County, found a cost effective way to build flood control projects AND parks concurrently, by building parks in the flood plains. This makes use of undevelopable property, while simultaneously enhancing the tax producing property nearby. These new parks are certainly welcomed by the creative class (as well as the working class), but was not done to attract them...it was done to give the citizens already here some quality of life. The fact that the creative class also likes it is a bonus.

What both of these guys ignore is that Houston is not a terrible place to live...it has a PERCEPTION that it is a bad place to live. By and large, the people who live here like it, and there are plenty of outdoor recreation opportunities, given our climate and proximity to the Gulf and lakes. Richard Florida especially ignores two glaring facts. One, the creative class rarely starts businesses from scratch. They work for an employer first, gaining valuable experience, then leave to start their own business. Secondly, if a creative class individual actually WERE to choose a city first, it would rarely be a city with a perception like Houston, because under Florida's rules, they look for superstar amenities.

The fact is, the overwhelming majority of people go where the jobs are. The superstar cities are glutted with young college grads following Richard Florida trends. The smart ones come to Houston, Dallas and Atlanta....and, they do well here. Can Houston do better with quality of life issues? Sure. Is that all the City should concentrate on? Not even close.

Good points all. We need to avoid the temptation to think in dichotomies like there is a clear dividing line between trying to attract

[Subdude]

Another Chronicle article. I could swear they read this forum sometimes, or at least Coog's posts.

June 6, 2007, 10:54AM

By MIKE SNYDER and MIKE TOLSON

Copyright 2007 Houston Chronicle

Just be yourself, Houston.

That was the essence of the message delivered to the Greater Houston Partnership on Tuesday by urban historian Joel Kotkin, who urged the region's leaders not to be seduced by strategies focused on luring the "creative class" of hip young professionals.

Instead, Kotkin argued, Houston should continue its traditions of low taxes and limited regulations to maintain a favorable business environment and a low cost of living. Local governments, he said, should focus on expanding highway capacity and improving street and drainage systems.

"Downtown Houston will never be Midtown Manhattan," said Kotkin, a senior fellow at the New America Foundation, a Washington-based think tank, and the author of several books on urban issues.

In a report commissioned by the partnership, entitled "Opportunity Urbanism: An Emerging Paradigm for the 21st Century," Kotkin argues that quality-of-life issues such as parks and cultural amenities need not be a top priority of local leaders.

These amenities, he said, develop organically in cities with strong economies that can help lift working-class people into the middle class.

Mayor Bill White said he agrees with Kotkin's description of Houston as an "opportunity city" that's open to new ideas and new residents from diverse backgrounds.

But Stephen Klineberg, a Rice University sociology professor who has studied Houston for 25 years, said Kotkin's analysis represents a "serious misreading of the new competitive environment facing American cities like Houston in the 21st century."

Kotkin doesn't place enough emphasis on the need to provide a good education to the immigrants and other ethnic minorities who make up most of the Houston area's younger population, said Klineberg, who spoke briefly at the partnership luncheon after Kotkin's speech.

Link

[MidtownCoog]

You heard that here first!

Some of what Klineberg, Florida and Kotkin say makes sense, but it's just common sense. But not of them are entirely right, either.

It's all theories, folks.

[MidtownCoog]

From Sunday's editorials:

BLOOMTOWN HOUSTON

Ours is an opportunity city with a style uniquely its own. Let's quit wishing we were something else and let Houston be Houston.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editor...ok/4876640.html

"Let Houston Be Houston" sure is close to my trademark: Houston - Be Yourself.

It's catching on.

[musicman]

From Sunday's editorials:

BLOOMTOWN HOUSTON

Ours is an opportunity city with a style uniquely its own. Let's quit wishing we were something else and let Houston be Houston.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editor...ok/4876640.html

"Let Houston Be Houston" sure is close to my trademark: Houston - Be Yourself.

It's catching on.

great article from Tory. i'm sure most urban planner types wouldn't agree though.

[Vertigo58]

great article from Tory. i'm sure most urban planner types wouldn't agree though.

Port of Houston will keep booming if all above holds true. We better speed up expanding or improving our freeways, etc.

[The Great Hizzy!]

The meshing of ideas and theories is important as well. As 'Coog said, not everyone is 100% right or 100% wrong. Cities are indeed the longtime melting pots of varying sensibilities and interests, and longterm successful cities are likely to be able to bring these groups together in a meaningful way.

For as great as San Francisco is in many respects, there are aspects of it that come across as cold and uninviting to certain sensibilites (forget about the cost of living). That can't always be ignored. Nor should a city like Houston ignore the need to invest in its core, in its infrastructure and all the "snazzy" things that may not always be practical but almost always invigorating.

So we'll see how it works out!

Edited June 11, 2007 by The Great Hizzy!

[lockmat]

Is Tory a guest writer or a regular for the Chronicle? Because while I don't doubt the praise Houston gets for being unique and the opportunity it brings, I would like to know what an outsiders view of us is, but only if they have educated theirselves on the makeup of the city. I mean, is all this talk just to puff up Houstonian pride, and so that more businesses will want to come?

I just want to know how legitimate these kind of statements are.

[MidtownCoog]

Is Tory a guest writer or a regular for the Chronicle?

It's an op/ed piece. Anybody can write one, and if it's good, they publish it.

I would like to know what an outsiders view of us is

Lockmart, let it go. Quit worry about what the world thinks of us. Only "we" can take care of "us".

You remind me of Roseanne Rogers asking Pamela Anderson "what she thinks about Houston".

[lockmat]

Lockmart, let it go. Quit worry about what the world thinks of us. Only "we" can take care of "us".

You remind me of Roseanne Rogers asking Pamela Anderson "what she thinks about Houston".

midcoog...I'm not wondering if outsiders "like" our city. I'm wondering about factual quotes like this:

But the most impressive result of our data analysis is that Houston may be able to legitimately claim the highest standard of living among major metrpolitan areas in America, and possibly the world, in terms of the lifestyle that can be afforded on the median income.

He backed it up with some good facts, but may is a pretty strong, or not strong, word.

Houston is the ultimate "dynamist" city, with a pioneering urban model to be proud of and promote to others. We're a city that's always self-renewing, with innovations like voluntary deed restrictions instead of zoning, which push controls down to the neighborhood level instead of a giant centralized bureaucracy.

Would an objective person say we're the "ultimate" dynamist city? I think that's a legitimate question.

That "brand," which has been promoted by Mayor Bill White for many years, best sums up our friendliness, hospitality, entrepreneurial energy, minimal regulations (including no zoning), open-mindedness, diversity, affordability, social mobility, optimism, and charity (especially after Hurricane Katrina).

Is our "brand" really so unique? I mean, how can we know when all I find on writings and analysis about Houston is always people FROM Houston? I just want more objectivity, that's all.

Are they being honest about their analysis of the city, or are they stretching the truth? So take it back, now!

Edited June 11, 2007 by lockmat

[musicman]

Port of Houston will keep booming if all above holds true.

as will carrying freight via railroads.

[lockmat]

What constitutes a rich environment for these four enablers to do their positive work? The more education, job, start-up, or affordable home options they have within their personal travel-time/cost tolerance, the more likely most people are to take advantage of them. That's their opportunity zone, and Houston has managed to maximize it in four key ways.

Do y'all think Houston, especially the urban core, is moving towards or away from the idea of this statement?

[MidtownCoog]

Would an objective person say we're the "ultimate" dynamist city? I think that's a legitimate question.

What does it matter?

Washington does not sell New York. Boston does not sell New York.

New York sells New York.

And only Houston can sell Houston.

Edited June 11, 2007 by MidtownCoog

[musicman]

Is Tory a guest writer or a regular for the Chronicle? Because while I don't doubt the praise Houston gets for being unique and the opportunity it brings, I would like to know what an outsiders view of us is, but only if they have educated theirselves on the makeup of the city. I mean, is all this talk just to puff up Houstonian pride, and so that more businesses will want to come?

It was an editorial piece in the Houston Chronicle meant to be read by those Houstonians who find the topic interesting and want to be more informed. GM and Walmart won't be moving their headquarters to Houston.

Do y'all think Houston, especially the urban core, is moving towards or away from the idea of this statement?

Remember the title of his article is "Stop dreaming: let Houston be Houston."

[lockmat]

Remember the title of his article is "Stop dreaming: let Houston be Houston."

Huh? Houston is changing. I'm not wanting it to have more affordable housing just for the sake of having affordable housing. I want it b/c it will, "create a rich environment for these four enablers to do their positive work." That's a good thing, whether it's copycat or not.

[musicman]

Huh? Houston is changing. I'm not wanting it to have more affordable housing just for the sake of having affordable housing. I want it b/c it will, "create a rich environment for these four enablers to do their positive work." That's a good thing, whether it's copycat or not.

i think you're missing the point of the article. Houston isn't changing, it is growing because the economics in our area are a boon for residents/ commerical interests because it is advantageous to be here. relatively, cost of living is cheap/land is cheap/housing is cheap/great jobs. Now you must remember that the article is for houston as a whole. does this mean that you'll be able to live in river oaks mansion? NO, but for your salary you will find somewhere nice to live and enjoy. we already have affordable housing which "creates a rich enviromnent for these four enablers to do their positive work" this isn't something that is new to houston, i'd call it a trait.